Omniscience

[MahtiSonni]

The subject that currently interests me is omniscience, and the reason is that the common understanding of the word may be a contradiction.

The word means "all knowledge", and is often referred as a pastiche of Bret Hart: knowing everything there is, everything there was and everything there will ever be.  This implies determinism and a mechanistic universe that plays itself and abolishes the concepts of free will, morality, responsibility and such.  That is because to hold someone responsible one would have to have the ability to do otherwise and in a mechanistic universe that simply is not the case.  I instinctively recoil from this understanding of the word as it is in direct contradiction with how I, and everyone else, approaches life.  It would also mean that God is the sort of monstrous puppet master who first creates beings He knows to mess up and then tortures them for shits and giggles while being the only one ever making a choice of any sort and thus directly and alone responsible for everything.  You know, the sort of God atheists reject, and if it was real, Christianity, or any other religion, for that matter, would make absolutely no sense at all.

So my question is: what if "all knowledge" cannot encompass the future, as it does not exist? Sure, one can calculate those things that depend on mechanisms, but not, say, what I shall eat tomorrow, for I have yet to decide that. Having all knowledge cannot mean having knowledge that is not there.  This leaves open the possibility of having a free will, moral responsibility et al.  It is also supported by our empirical experience of life.

If the suggestion my question implies is correct, then God can be both omniscient and omnipotent without being omniderigent (ie. all-acting puppet master).  And if so, the Bible would also make sense.

PS. I do not subscribe to the usual attribution of God as omniscient, because the Bible strongly implies He isn't.  He may well be voliscient (knows what he wants to know) and I'm perfectly ok with that.

PPS. No wonder most atheists are so hell bent on determinism; their faux-moral rejection of God depends on it.

[RichardY]

If god is not all knowing, his domain is not absolute. So can't be omnipotent either.

So my question is: what if "all knowledge" cannot encompass the future, as it does not exist? 

12 hours ago, MahtiSonni said:

The subject that currently interests me is omniscience, and the reason is that the common understanding of the word may be a contradiction.

Well as you have already said, knowledge presupposes a subject. All is not a subject.

[MahtiSonni]

8 hours ago, RichardY said:

If god is not all knowing, his domain is not absolute. So can't be omnipotent either.

Explain further how you think that is the case, please.  It appears to me you're confusing capability with action here.

Quote

Well as you have already said, knowledge presupposes a subject. All is not a subject.

Funny; I always thought "all" encompasses all subjects.  Can you elaborate?  Edit: While I'd like some further explanation on what you meant, a moment thinking about it reveals at least something: all might mean more than every thing, which is everything.  The words are often used interchangeably, and so precision is elusive.

Edited September 25, 2018 by MahtiSonni
Thought a bit.

[Mak1]

On 9/24/2018 at 12:51 PM, MahtiSonni said:

what if "all knowledge" cannot encompass the future, as it does not exist?

I don't have a problem with defining the word omniscience to not include knowing the future (as it does not exist). In relating to God, there might be scripture that contradicts this definition though (not my expertise, so I don't really know). As far as I can see this means that God can be omniscient and omnipotent at the same time. But if you want to prove that God exists, you have more hurdles to go (like the rest of Stefans book Against The Gods?).

[RichardY]

22 hours ago, RichardY said:

If god is not all knowing, his domain is not absolute. So can't be omnipotent either as well.

17 hours ago, MahtiSonni said:

Explain further how you think that is the case, please.  It appears to me you're confusing capability with action here.

I think it is important to point out omniscience means all knowing, and not all knowledge. As knowledge presupposes a subject, knowing does not.

Because time is relative, the future is a relative notion. As you are saying that all knowledge can not encompass the future, which it can't. The only way to encompass the future would be through subjects. God can not have knowledge of morality, as morality is not knowing.

17 hours ago, MahtiSonni said:

Funny; I always thought "all" encompasses all subjects.  Can you elaborate?  Edit: While I'd like some further explanation on what you meant, a moment thinking about it reveals at least something: all might mean more than every thing, which is everything.  The words are often used interchangeably, and so precision is elusive.

"All" being an indefinite pronoun. All knowledge, is not knowledge at all.

[MahtiSonni]

6 hours ago, RichardY said:

I think it is important to point out omniscience means all knowing, and not all knowledge. As knowledge presupposes a subject, knowing does not.

You make a distinction I can't find in a dictionary and don't consider sensible.  No one else understands those words to mean what you think.

[MahtiSonni]

12 hours ago, Mak1 said:

I don't have a problem with defining the word omniscience to not include knowing the future (as it does not exist). In relating to God, there might be scripture that contradicts this definition though (not my expertise, so I don't really know). As far as I can see this means that God can be omniscient and omnipotent at the same time. But if you want to prove that God exists, you have more hurdles to go (like the rest of Stefans book Against The Gods?).

Scriptural claims to omniscience are heavily context dependent, and even then it is unclear what the term there means.  I tend to go with a hermeneutical approach that interprets words in a way that don't make the text necessarily absurd.

In what comes to Against the Gods, this thread isn't really about it.  I wonder, though, how many errors in a philosophical book should there be until it is viewed as fundamentally flawed?  Every argument?  One in ten?  I don't know what heuristic to use.

[Mak1]

9 hours ago, MahtiSonni said:

I wonder, though, how many errors in a philosophical book should there be until it is viewed as fundamentally flawed?

Stefan's argument that God can't be omniscient and omnipotent at the same time is valid if you define that omniscience includes all future knowledge. This is a common way of defining the term and that is why Stefan presented the argument.

[MahtiSonni]

9 hours ago, Mak1 said:

Stefan's argument that God can't be omniscient and omnipotent at the same time is valid if you define that omniscience includes all future knowledge. This is a common way of defining the term and that is why Stefan presented the argument.

Indeed.  The difference between his approach and mine is that I prefer the correct way over the common.  If one wants to demolish a position, he should take on the strongest possible interpretation possible, for to do otherwise is to argue in bad faith.

Why not take on the biblical definition of God when it is the target anyway (as that is the only god known as an omnipotent & omniscient creator; nobody has ever attributed such to Odin or Marduk)?

[Mak1]

14 hours ago, MahtiSonni said:

The difference between his approach and mine is that I prefer the correct way over the common.

Is it clear to anyone else than you that your definition of the word is the correct one? Using your definition Stefan would have to leave the argument out of the book. But, if religious people in general use the common definition, it is better to present the argument.

[MahtiSonni]

11 hours ago, Mak1 said:

Is it clear to anyone else than you that your definition of the word is the correct one? Using your definition Stefan would have to leave the argument out of the book. But, if religious people in general use the common definition, it is better to present the argument.

My main reason to prefer the definition I have presented is that the common definition does not make sense.  Another reason is that truth is not a democracy.  I also prefer to use the Ockham's razor, and having an interpretation of the word compatible with the Bible is a lot easier to explain than another, which makes the whole book an absurd farce.

People use the common definition, not because they think is sound, but because they have heard it, and simply accepted and not thought about it.  Most people do not spend any time thinking about philosophy.

Any honest philosopher should attack the strongest possible form of an argument.  To do otherwise is merely pretending to defeat it.

[Mak1]

On 9/28/2018 at 9:25 AM, MahtiSonni said:

Any honest philosopher should attack the strongest possible form of an argument.  To do otherwise is merely pretending to defeat it.

I'm sure there is nothing to be gained by continuing to argue with you, but you implying that Stefan is not an "honest philosopher", because you could find a flaw in one of his arguments, is just frankly bullshit. We are talking about a definition of a word here. It was not clear to me, and I'm sure to many people, how to best define it.

[MahtiSonni]

Funny; I was not aware that we were having an argument.  Usually that involves having both a subject and arguments about it.  "I think" and "I don't think" do not match criteria for such.

I didn't think about the word's meaning through prior either. Probably very few have. I believe he has made a honest mistake on that point.

We all also have our blind spots, and that includes Stefan. When he started several of his early books about subjects like ethics and relationships with a sermon against religion, it's safe to say that's where he is at his most emotional and least rational, which is apparent from his arguments against them.  I'm not overly concerned that you get offended about that.  I seek truth, not approval.

[RichardY]

2 hours ago, MahtiSonni said:

I seek truth, not approval.

If you did why would you have to say it? It's clear by your statement that you don't.

 

On 9/28/2018 at 7:25 AM, MahtiSonni said:

Any honest philosopher should attack the strongest possible form of an argument.  To do otherwise is merely pretending to defeat it.

2 hours ago, MahtiSonni said:

I didn't think about the word's meaning through prior either. Probably very few have. I believe he has made a honest mistake on that point.

 

 

[MahtiSonni]

17 hours ago, RichardY said:

If you did why would you have to say it? It's clear by your statement that you don't.

Because I was called a bullshitter for offering several criticisms of shoddy arguments and/or attacks at a flimsy strawman.  I kinda feel that once someone calls your stuff bullshit that is also questioning the truth value of what has been said.

Quote

juxtaposition

When I wrote the first, I was thinking about the fact that he attacked a "omniscient, omnipotent god", while of existing religions IMHK only Islam purports to have one by its actual theology.  Considering that his book is an obvious attack on Christianity specifically, it's more than slightly suspicious that he didn't take on the biblical God.  I thought I had written it out, but apparently did not, so I understand the reason for your confusion.  So mea culpa there - I accused Stefan of being too lazy while being too lazy myself.

I believe Stefan was far too lazy at the omniscience point, but didn't fathom it.  When one has a bias, the things he overlooks tend to be of the sort that make his position less strong.  Both omniscience and omnipotence can be redefined to be "self-contradictory" even alone, but that's no evidence for much other than a knack for making up oxymorons.